CRUX: Chandrashekar Dnyaneshwar Chavan v. State of Maharashtra (31st March, 2021) - The issue that the present case deals with is whether an adult girl, who had eloped with a 20-year-old man, can be detained by the court after a habeas corpus petition had been filed by her father.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31st March, 2021.
JUDGES: Ravindra V. Ghuge, B.U. Debadwar.
PARTIES
Chandrashekar Dnyaneshwar Chavan (Appellant)
State of Maharashtra (Respondent)
SUMMARY: The following case deals with the issue of whether an adult girl, who had eloped with a 20-year-old man, can be detained by the court after a habeas corpus petition had been filed by her father.
OVERVIEW
1. A petition invoking the writ of habeas corpus had been filed by the father of a girl who had eloped with a 20-year-old boy after he had filed a missing persons’ case.
2. Based on the petition, the court had passed a judgment ordering the District Superintendent of Police to monitor the subsequent investigation and produce the said missing girl before the court.
3. The missing girl, a few days later, had appeared before the court on her own. She produced her Aadhar Card to establish and confirm her identity. The court, on receipt of the Aadhar Card, was able to verify the identity of the girl.
4. The girl established before the court that she was an 18-year-old girl, who had fallen in love with a 20-year-old boy. They had been living together and had planned to get married after the boy had attained the marriageable age of 21 years.
5. The girl requested the court to not record her present place of residence, as she feared that her father might track her and the boy down and cause physical harm to them.
ISSUES
The following issue was analyzed by the court:
- Whether the girl can be detained by the court after a habeas corpus petition had been filed by her father.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Art. 21 of the Constitution: Right to life and personal liberty.
- Art. 226 of the Constitution: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
1. The counsel for the appellant submitted before the court that the appellant desired to talk to his daughter. When the court asked the girl if she desired to meet her father, she answered in the negative.
2. When asked by the court whether if she would like to return to the home of her parents, the girl replied by stating that she did not wish to go back home and that she should not be forced to meet her parents.
3. On being questioned, the girl had answered before the court that she had left her home voluntarily with the boy and that she had not suffered any physical harm at the hands of the boy.
4. She later informed the court that they had planned to marry once the boy had attained the marriageable age of 21 years.
5. The prosecutor submitted before the court that the role of the police had concluded since the girl had appeared before the court on her own.
6. The prosecutor further suggested to the court that an Assistant Sub-Inspector present in this Court today would, at best, accompany the missing girl and the boy in view of their apprehension and to ensure that they safely board a bus to travel to a place of their choice.
7. On being called upon by the court, the counsel for the appellant submitted before the court that neither the appellant nor his family would cause physical harm to the girl or to the boy.
8. Based on the aforementioned observations made, the court held that since the missing girl was an adult and the boy she eloped with was also an adult, though not of a marriageable age, it had no reason to detain the missing girl, considering the specific replies given by her, as recorded herein above.
CONCLUSION
The issue that the present case deals with is whether an adult girl, who had eloped with a 20-year-old man, can be detained by the court after a habeas corpus petition had been filed by her father. The court, in the present case, held in the negative, and held that it cannot detain the adult girl who had eloped with a man as she had eloped, as she had appeared before the court on her own after a habeas corpus petition had been filed by her father.
The court held that it had no reason to detain the girl as she and the boy were not minors who were in love and had planned to marry once the boy had reached the marriageable age of 21 years. In Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044, the Supreme Court observed that the right that can be enforced under Article 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified. Based on this view, the view of the court can be justified.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
